Thursday, 17 January 2013

The Different Political Paths Of The 'Two Koreas'

This paper will begin with a brief overview of the breakup of Korea and
the ensuing war before explaining the two different political systems that
emerged in each state. The paper will then undertake a comparative discussion
of the different regime types in North and South Korea since 1953 to provide
some context to the political developments that have occurred in each state
since then. Following on from this the paper will assess the literature on each
state before going on to apply different regime typology theory to both cases
to assess what Korean style dictatorship and democracy have meant for the
citizens of North and South Korea respectively. Finally the paper will conclude
with a summary of its findings and some recommendations for future policy.

North Korea is
increasingly portrayed as a pariah on the world stage, with each news report on
the Asian state rushing to caricature the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
(DPRK) as a state that has a bizarre leadership and an oppressed citizenry.
However, a major problem with reporting on North Korea is a lack of information
as well as a lack of credibility to much of the information that is forthcoming
(Smith
1996, p.xiii).
It is the hypothesis of this research that after the division of Korea after
World-War-Two by imperialist powers, the different political and economic paths
that North and South Korea have taken has produced a situation the economic
development of the capitalist South had led to democratisation whilst economic
stagnation in and Western policies against the communist North has perpetuated
dictatorial rule. This paper will assess what the break-up of Korea and the
different political paths the two Korea’s have taken meant for each state.

Korea is one of
the oldest nations in existence. It has a rich culture and strong national
identity and had more than a millennium of unity before its colonisation by
imperialist Japan in 1910 (Halliday
and Cumings 1988, p.10).
After nearly four decades of rule by Japan, after World-War-Two it was divided
along the thirty-eight parallel by American colonels. This division left the
capital, Seoul in the south ruled by US forces, whilst the north was ruled over
by Soviet forces with a three year occupation in each territory (Ibid,
p.16). Although a Korean government of
‘people’s committees’ had taken over the running of the state upon the demise
of Japan, the US shunned this idea as a too communistic and set about
constructing a government apparatus that was more favourable to its ideals, and
supported the conservative Korean Democratic Party (KDP) as its government in
the South (Ibid, pp.15-16). With UN support in 1948, elections were held in to
elect a national government but the north refused to participate. The vote
elected Syngman Rhee as leader and the UN ratified the election as the will of
two-thirds of the Korean people (Bluth 2008, p.13). Soon after, the north proclaimed the DPRK and
Kim Il Sung became its leader.

With soviet
forces leaving the north in 1948 and US forces leaving the south in 1949, a tit
for tat guerrilla war ensued. In 1950, North Korean armed forces with the
support of Stalin’s Soviet Union invaded the South (Ibid, p.1). Truman in the
US saw this as an act of communist aggression and committed US forces with the
support of the UN (Ibid, p.2). The war lasted three years. On July 27th
1953, an armistice agreement was signed by the North and the UN, although the
South did not sign as it wanted the war to continue and Korea to be
liberated. The human cost of the war was
huge with an estimated 2,000,000 Koreans dying, as well as 900,000 Chinese and
54,246 US troops (Ibid, p.20). A demilitarised zone was imposed along the
border which deterred another full-scale war, and the division of Korea has
existed since then.

The regime that
emerged in North Korea has been described and characterises itself as
communist, however the state is best characterised as a hybrid dictatorship and
a Stalinist, personalistic, totalitarian regime. After the end of the war, Kim
Il Sung carefully orchestrated a cult of personality based upon himself and became known as the ‘Great
Leader’ (Fredriksen
2001, p.277).
His indigenous nationalistic version of socialism was called juche, or
“self-reliance,” which required sacrifices for the state. The political
institutions of the DPRK were modelled on the Stalinist system of the Soviet
Union, however the structure of the political institutions was irrelevant
because during the 1960s, Kim consolidated his power to the extent that he
could no longer be challenged (Bluth 2008, p.25-26). In the early 1970s Kim Il
Sung chose his son Kim Jung il as his successor and began to place him at the
centre of power in the DPRK. Research has suggested that Kim Jung il was
largely running the government by the 1980s as his father slipped into
semi-retirement (Ibid, p.27-28).
Although totally going against their proclaimed Marxist/Leninist
ideological position, upon Kim Il Sung’s death in 1994, his son Kim Jong Il
took over the mantle of running the state until his own death, and the
succession of his son Kim Jong-un in 2012.

Between 1953 and
the 1970s, with a Stalinist command economic model, industrial production as
well as collectivised farms dominated the North Korean economy and remarkable economic
gains were made which eclipsed capitalist South Korea (Fredriksen
2001, P.277). However, between 1970 and 1990 the DPRK
economy had been in slow decline with mounting external debt, overspending on
military and a series of mismanaged seven-year plans not achieving the desired
results (Bluth
2008, p.37-39).
By the mid-1990s, various factors combined to produce an agricultural famine
with an estimated 3.5% of the population dying (Nolan,
2003 cited in Bluth 2008, p.40). Although some economic reforms have been
instigated since then, the economic situation in the DPRK remains dire.

Perhaps the most
controversial aspect of North Korea’s policies has been its nuclear programme.
This, the North Koreans argue is to protect itself from outside aggressors such
as the United States. The West in contrast sees its nucleariseation as an
aggressive act. Two periods of crises illustrate this. The first in 1993 saw
North Korea withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT). After over a year and a half of military and diplomatic
manoeuvres, North Korea succeeded in getting the United States to sign an
agreement which gave economic concessions to the North and normalised relations
between the two states (Michishita
2009, p.93)
and (Niksch
2005, p.4).
In December 2002, North Korea stated that it was to resume the operation and
construction of nuclear facilities. After economic sanctions from the US, the
North launched ballistic missile nuclear tests in 2006. The strategy succeeded in getting some US sanctions dropped
and also its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism rescinded (Ibid,
p.163), but that is as far as it went and the situation remains tentative.

The political
system that emerged in South Korea was markedly different to that in the North.
Although nominally a capitalist democracy, the South has had a difficult path
in consolidating that democracy, and had to endure decades of military and authoritarian
rule. After the Korean War, the South evolved into a bureaucratic entity and
owing to its continuing confrontation with its sister state, required a strong
military presence. This situation led to a lack of focus on other institutions
and allowed the military to assume a direct political role (Cotton
1989, p.248).
South Korean politics during Syngman Rhee's regime (1948-60) centred on his
struggle to remain in power with the use of fraudulent tactics. After popular
dissatisfaction and a student rebellion, Rhee resigned in 1960 (Savada and Shaw 1997). Whilst Rhee had controlled
the military by manipulating the generals, his successor Chang could not. Under
the command of Major General Park Chung Hee, the army carried out a coup d'état
on May 16, 1961 leading to eighteen years of direct military junta rule (Ibid).

As
dissatisfaction with the eighteen-year rule of Park Chung Hee grew in 1979, so
did the opposition with mass labour unrest and protest. Fearing a revolution
because of Park’s hard line against the dissent, the director of the Korean
Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) assonated Park (Shorrock
1986, p.1199).
As popular demands for democracy grew, another military coup led by Lieutenant
General Chun Doo Hwan took power again. He was later ‘elected’ president by the
National Conference for Unification and set out a bold plan to create a new
society. He removed old politicians from the scene and only those certified as
"clean" could participate in politics (Savada and Shaw 1997). He appointed a new
constitutional assembly which prepared a new constitution which restricted
presidential terms to seven years as well as introducing new labour laws which
banned workers unions and labour federations. New press laws also put the media
under strict control (Shorrock
1986, p.1205).

Chun’s rule was
championed by new US president Ronald Reagan whose anti-communist and
neo-liberal economic agenda was shared with Chun. Although impressive economic
growth was achieved after 1983, by 1987 Chun’s reneging on his promise of a
democratic transition led to widespread protest and this ultimately led to his
stepping down, with his successor Roo Tae Woo announcing an eight-point
democratisation programme which capitulated to the opposition’s democratic
demands (Lie
2000, pp.150-152),
and paving the way for democratic consolidation ever since.

During the
latter part of the military dictatorship and the early years of democratic
consolidation, economic development in South Korea was hugely impressive in
contrast to its sister state. In effect, one of the world's poorest countries
developed into an industrialized member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) within three decades. Growth of GNP per capita rose from
$87 in 1962 to $8483 in 1994. As well as this, exports grew from $40 million in
1953 to $96 billion in 1994 (Kim,
1997a, pp.1-2, cited in Hassink 1999, p.128). So, it could be argued that
economic growth in some ways spurred democratic demands. Democratic
consolidation in turn led to massive economic growth with South Korea becoming
one of Asia’s ‘Tiger’ economies.

While there were
some similarities between the two states’ leadership since the breakup, there
are also some important typological differences. Both Korean regimes, up until
1987 in the case of the South, have had dictatorial regimes. However, there
were important differences between these forms of dictatorships that go beyond
the economic mode of production that they adopted. To understand what is meant
by dictatorship, a definition is useful. For this purpose Przeworski et al.’s explanation
that “democracies are those in which those who govern are selected through
contested elections. Dictatorships are not democracies” is best (Przeworski, et al.
2000).
North Korea is best described as a hybrid dictatorship combining personalist
and single-party rule in a totalitarian fashion (Ezrow and
Frantz 2011, p.22).
In contrast to this, the regime in South Korea between 1961 and 1987 could be best
described as a military dictatorship with authoritarian rule (Ibid, p.20).

Single party
dictatorships are those in which power is concentrated in the hands of one
single party and the leader of the regime is typically the head of that
party. Within such a system the ruling
party controls the institutions of the state and directs the majority of the
political arena including media, local government and civil society (Ibid,
p.192). Party officials are typically the masters of policy, and rule is imposed
through decrees, mandates or legislation that is uncontested. Within the
category of single party dictatorships, different typologies exist including
weak and strong systems, hegemonic systems and ideological one party states
which in particular are characterised by one party holding power and a reliance
on official state ideology (Ibid, pp.193-195). These types of regimes are
remarkably robust because they can both suppress and co-opt political
opposition (Ibid, p.197).

Personalist
dictatorships share some similarities but also important differences. These are
regimes where a single individual controls politics without any checks and
balances on their power. The leader dominates the military as well as all of
the state apparatus, and the ruling party if there is one is used as a tool of
the leader to carry out their goals (Ezrow and
Frantz 2011, p.215).
It is quite common that such dictators are current or were once members of the
military, although once in power the military becomes subservient to them (Ibid
p.216). Regularly personalist dictators have a close personal clique, in many
cases close family who help to rule. Although they are generally durable
regimes, their structure often make it problematic for them to survive beyond
their reign (Ibid, p.220). They use a number of methods to retain their power
including repression, select patronage networks, building cults of personality
and using divide and conquer tactics (Ibid, pp.221-224). With this form of
dictatorship, intra-regime succession infrequently occurs, although when it
does it is normal to a son or male relative (Ibid, p.232). In many cases, a
hybrid between the one party and the personalist dictatorships occurs. This can
be applied to the case of North Korea.

Military
dictatorships are regimes in which control over policy and the security forces
rests in the hands of the military. Typically in this form of dictatorship, the
leader is a current or former military officer. At times, a group of officers
or a ‘junta’ hold the power and govern in a cohesive, disciplined manner with
efficient lines of communication (Ezrow and Frantz 2011,
p.167). In general, policy is implemented by the
military which preserves most of government institutions. Typologies of
military dictatorship are varied and include different structural forms such as
direct rule. They also include moderator, guardian and ruler types, and professional
and praetorian dictatorships (Ibid, pp.168-170). Although many military
dictatorships can rule with an iron fist, “many scholars have highlighted the
internal fragility of military dictatorships, and among dictatorships military
regimes are the most short lived” (Ibid, p.171). The reasons for this include
the preferences of military elites for the military over political office, the
destabilising effect of factionalism, a commitment to temporary rule and also
sensitivity to pressures for democratisation (Ibid, 171-174). This type of
dictatorship was evident in South Korea for many years.

The different
types of political systems that were adopted in North and South Korea after its
divide have produced many different results for the citizens of each state. In
North Korea, the hybrid personalist and one-party dictatorship with Kim Il
Sung, his son Kim Jong il and his grandson Kim Jong-un has proved very durable,
with each of their successions running smoothly and their leadership going
unchallenged. In contrast to this, South
Korea has flirted with democracy, dictatorship and military junta before
eventually consolidating democratic reforms from the late 1980s until now. In
North Korea, although initial impressive economic growth showed positive signs
for its citizens, subsequent policies have seen an increasing isolation of the
state on the world stage because of its nuclear programme, and increasing
impoverishment for its citizens due to many different factors. In contrast to
this, since democratic consolidation in the South, they have gone on to best
one of the world’s best performing economies. The following discussion will
assess why the different paths have been taken, what has led to the durability
of a dictatorship in one state and democratic reforms in another and why the
South has successfully developed economically at a better rate than the North.

In looking to
the case of North Korea first, the path towards a personalist one party
dictatorship was sown into the fabric of North Korean society for the early
days of Kim Il Sung’s leadership. Undoubtedly, the war played a huge role in
directing public and military support behind Kim, but other factors have played
a role in solidifying the regime. Perhaps most important in this regard has been
the cult of personality. As in many personalist dictatorships, Kim Il Sung
built up a system with himself as the centrepiece of each and every policy
reform. He and his kin have cast themselves as almost divine, and the ‘natural’
leaders of the state. The official state ideology of juche has been used to
indoctrinate the population towards a singular goal. This has led to a
consolidation of power which in many ways seems unbreakable. This has been
achieved by methods such as repression through the ultimate control of the
military and the building of select patronage networks like in other
personalist dictatorships. It has produced a remarkable situation where two
intra-family successions have occurred, an irregular feat in most cases. But
other factors have contributed to the North Korean dictatorship’s survival.

Like many other
dictatorships, the leadership of North Korea have always maintained a strong
anti-imperialist stance. Since the state’s inception it has been the focus of
the anti-communist West, and in particular the United States. This it can be
argued has produced a situation whereby North Korea’s leadership have
capitalised on Western negativity towards communism and portrayed itself as
constantly under threat from capitalist powers. This has allowed the
solidification of the state ideology, and an acceptance of strong leadership
and heavy military spending to protect the state from outside aggressors. In addition to this, sanctions that have been
imposed by the Western powers because of North Korea’s nuclear programme have
in many ways stifled the prospects for development in the North, and have
produced a situation whereby far from reducing internal support for the regime,
they have contributed to its survival. The hybrid nature of North Korea’s
regime has allowed it to use both personalistic and one party strategy to
maintain its grip on power.

In contrast to
the North, South Korea has taken the path to democracy and away from
dictatorial rule. Its initial period of rule following the division of Korea
under the stewardship of Syngman Rhee could be best characterised as a period
of authoritarian rule. Rhee spent much of his time in power trying to grab more
power and supressing popular dissent and calls for democratisation. Park Chung Hee’s coup and subsequent military
dictatorship saw some form of stability in-so-far as it lasted eighteen years.
During this period, although elections were held, many opposition politicians
were barred from politics and votes were rigged to ensure a majority for the
ruling party (Cotton
1989, p.250).
Park’s government also manipulated media and used government resources to
purchase votes, and to impede funding of opposition parties (Ibid).
Essentially, Park’s repression of opposition increased calls for
democratisation and this ultimately led to his downfall and assassination as a
revolution was feared by elites.

Although calls
for democracy intensified, another military dictatorship in the form of Chun
Doo Hwan ensued and used many similar tactics of survival to those that had
gone before. Despite promises of democratic reform, Chun arrested thousands of
political dissidents and sent them to ‘purification camps run by the military.
As well as this, hundreds of labour leaders were fired from their jobs and
hundreds of critical journalists were expelled from working (Shorrock
1986, p.1204).
However it was not repression of the opposition that ultimately led to the
failure of Chun’s regime, but the success in promoting economic growth during
his era and during the previous military regime. As has been noted (Moffett 2013) and (Lipset 1994) and (Pei 1994), as a non-democratic state
experiences economic growth, it is more likely to experience calls for
democratisation. This provides a convincing explanation as to why South Korea
moved away from dictatorial rule towards democracy and its sister state still
lives under its own dictatorship. As a state develops economically its middle
class grows, and this in turn increases education and calls for democratic
institutions. While other factors certainly play a part in maintaining
dictatorial rule in the North, it is un-doubtable that economic progress and
growth in the south contributed to its move to and consolidation of democracy.

The division of
Korea into two different states was the result of a post-World War II
imperialist power grab. As is the case with many places that were carved up
after the World War, the nation of Korea has suffered decades of turmoil since
and will no doubt experience more until it achieves some form of re-unification
in the future. The different political paths that each of the two ‘Koreas’ have
taken have produced varied results for their citizens. North Korea remains a
personalistic one party dictatorship that suffers poverty and isolation for the
rest of the world. After impressive economic growth up until 1970, the
Stalinist model of a centralised command economy, fettered by bureaucratic
mismanagement destroyed the North Korean economy and it has not recovered
since. The dictatorship of Kim Il Sung
and his offspring have consolidated power in the reclusive state and have
achieved this primarily through repression, cult status and the strict
adherence to the official state ideology of juche. The maintenance of a siege
mentality has also helped to embolden the leadership as the true and divine
rulers of Korea.

In contrast to
this, South Korea has also experienced periods of authoritarian and military
dictatorial rule. After showing initial signs of democratisation, the state was
plunged into decades of military rule. Similar repressive tactics to those in
the North were used to supress dissent and political opposition. However one
offshoot of this repression was the purges of labour leaders. This allowed a
situation where workers’ rights and conditions were decimated, and it provided
a fertile investment opportunity for wealthy capitalists. This situation under
military rule provided strong economic growth. Paradoxically for the military
rulers, this also produced a situation where a growing educated and middle
class population demanded democratic rights. After years of opposition to
military dictatorial rule, in 1987 democracy was achieved and has been
consolidated since then. Economic growth promoting democracy best explains why
South Korea moved away from dictatorship. However, the lack of democratic
reforms in North Korea cannot solely be blamed on a lack of prosperity or
growth. The particular characteristics of the dynasty style leadership, amongst
other factors in the North, best describes the maintenance of the dictatorship
there. With this in mind, future policy from Western powers towards
dictatorships may be best served by promoting economic growth in those states,
as this may be a factor in promoting the path to democracy.

Bibliography:

Bluth, C.
2008. Korea. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Cotton, J. 1989. From authoritarianism to democracy in South Korea. Political
Studies, 37(2), pp.244-259.

Shorrock, T. 1986. The struggle for democracy in South Korea in the 1980s
and the rise of anti‐Americanism. Third World Quarterly, 8(4),
pp.1195-1218.
Smith, H. 1996. North Korea in the new world order. St. Martin's
Press.

Follow By Email

Recommended Articles

Total Pageviews

We Only Want The Earth is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. In other words, feel free to use any portion of these works, without asking, for whatever purpose you want, as long as you attribute it to us. (A hyperlink back to this site would be nice too!) :-)